Transfer of conceptualization patterns in bilinguals: The construal of motion events in Turkish and German

Daller, Michael; Treffers‐Daller, Jeanine; Furman, Reyhan

doi:10.1017/s1366728910000106

Cited by 68 publications

(86 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, our findings inform us about the role of language dominance in bilinguals. Most previous studies only found transfer from the dominant to the weaker language, suggesting a crucial role for language dominance (Argyri & Sorace, 2007;Daller et al, 2011;Montrul & Ionin, 2010;Serratrice, 2007). The bilinguals in our study were second-generation heritage speakers of Turkish.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 44%

“…A less frequently posed question is to what extent the weaker, yet first language may affect the L2. Studies that looked at both directions have demonstrated transfer from the dominant language to the weaker language, but not vice versa (Argyri & Sorace, 2007, for the syntax-discourse interface; Daller, Treffers-Daller, & Furman, 2011;Hohenstein, Eisenberg, & Naigles, 2006, for conceptualisation patterns of motion events; Montrul & Ionin, 2010, for morpho-syntax). Furthermore, Serratrice (2007) found no transfer from the non-dominant language (English) in bilingual English-Italian children, regarding the use of subject pronouns.…”

Section: On-line Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Focus in Dutch reading: an eye-tracking experiment with heritage speakers of Turkish

Rijswijk

Muntendam

Dijkstra

2017

Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines whether heritage speakers of Turkish in the Netherlands interpret focus in written Dutch sentences differently from L1 speakers of Dutch (controls). Where most previous studies examined effects from the dominant L2 on the heritage language, we investigated whether there are effects from the weaker heritage language on the dominant L2. Dutch and Turkish differ in focus marking. Dutch primarily uses prosody to encode focus, whereas Turkish uses prosody and syntax, with a preverbal area for focused information and a postverbal area for background information. In written sentences no explicit prosody is available, which possibly enhances the role of syntactic cues in interpreting focus. An eye-tracking experiment suggests that, unlike the controls, the bilinguals associate the preverbal area with focus and the postverbal area with background information. These findings are in line with transfer from the weaker L1 to the dominant L2 at the syntax-discourse interface.ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 44%

Section: On-line Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Focus in Dutch reading: an eye-tracking experiment with heritage speakers of Turkish

Rijswijk

Muntendam

Dijkstra

2017

Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a recent study on German (S-framed)-Turkish (V-framed) bilinguals, Daller, Treffers-Daller and Furman (2011) investigated possible transfer effects between the two languages at the level of conceptual construal, i.e., in the process of building up a temporary conceptual representation of a motion event. They found that depending on the dominant language, bilingual speakers select concepts which conform with the grammatical and lexical pattern of this language in all contexts.…”

Section: The Study Of Motion Events In L2 Acquisitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tracing trajectories

Carroll

Lambert²,

Weimar³

et al. 2012

LIA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the typological contrast between Romance and Germanic languages as verb-framed versus satellite-framed (Talmy 1985) forms the background for many empirical studies on L2 acquisition, the inconclusive picture to date calls for more differentiated, fine-grained analyses. The present study goes beyond explanations based on this typological contrast and takes into account the sources from which spatial concepts are mainly derived in order to shape the trajectory traced by the entity in motion when moving through space: the entity in V-languages versus features of the ground in S-languages. It investigates why advanced French learners of English and German have difficulty acquiring the use of spatial concepts typical of the L2s to shape the trajectory, although relevant concepts can be expressed in their L1. The analysis compares motion event descriptions, based on the same sets of video clips, of L1 speakers of the three languages to L1 French-L2 English and L1 French-L2 German speakers, showing that the learners do not fully acquire the use of L2-specific spatial concepts. We argue that encoded concepts derived from the entity in motion vs. the ground lead to a focus on different aspects of motion events, in accordance with their compatibility with these sources, and are difficult to restructure in L2 acquisition

show abstract

“…, gestures (Gullberg 2011), event conceptualization (Daller, Treffers-Daller, and Furman 2011;Treffers-Daller and Tidball in press, von Stutterheim et al 2012) and colour perception (Athanasopoulos 2009) reveal that L2 users differ significantly from monolinguals in how they conceptualize events, how they categorize objects and also in the gestures they make to accompany their speech. In addition, the variables that modulate such restructuring of conceptualization and cognitive patterns in bilinguals include increasing L2 proficiency, age of onset of bilingualism and length of stay in the L2-speaking country.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%